EDITORIAL
Returning the real cannons would be more worthy

PATTANI: -- Destruction of Phaya Thani cannons at Krue Se mosque shows historic bitterness remains in Pattani

Anywhere else in Thailand, it probably would not be an issue. But given the historical sentiment between the Malays of Patani and the Siam/Thai state, building a replica of the Phaya Tani cannons and putting it in front of the historic Krue Se mosque in Pattani, is an act that will definitely arouse ill feelings. Local Muslim residents see the site as national heritage and the replica as a symbol of their defeat and subsequent colonisation by the Thai state.

A few days ago, somebody blew up the Phaya Thani replica. Given the fact that the Malay-speaking region and the state have yet to overcome their historical animosity, it is understandable why some people might get some sense of satisfaction from the damage inflicted on the fake cannon.

Thai people may have thought they were demonstrating how understanding they could be by creating the replica and putting it in front of a historic mosque. But officials often mistake good intention for good policy. For the local Muslims, the cannons were war booty.

Today, Patani is no longer a vassal state. The Malay-speaking provinces of Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat are an integral part of the country - like Chiang Mai or Ubon. At least that's what we tell ourselves. But if we believe our own words, then we should not have any qualms about returning the two cannons - the real ones that currently sit in front of the Defence Ministry - to the deep South.

But the national mindset and common attitude continues to be that the region is an ungrateful member of the state.

However, we should not feel a sense of loss or humiliation, if we were to return the real canons to the deep South.

In fact, if we did return the cannons to the region, then it would demonstrate how Thailand has come to terms with the past. If anything it would be a gesture of goodwill, a readiness from the Thai side to reshape their mindset and attitude towards the deep South.

Thai leaders have often accused Malays in the deep South of stubbornly holding on to the past. But the state has done little and given few reasons why a shared destiny with the rest of the Thai nation is important for them.

In some ways, the region looks and feels like an occupied territory. Most of the bureaucrats are Buddhists from other parts of the country. And with tens of thousands of armed soldiers stationed in the restive region where an ongoing wave of insurgency claimed more than 5,000 lives, such perception is reinforced on a daily basis.

A few years back two young men from a tour company in Narathiwat rented a taxi in Bangkok for an entire day to check out possible tourist sites for people who might want to visit capital city. Among the stops was the Defence Ministry.

At the end of the day the cabby thought the two were up to something and turned them over to the police. They were detained and interrogated for four days before the authorities realised that the two young men were just tour operators.

Around the same time, at the beginning of this wave of the insurgency, the army was taking young (vulnerable) men from the deep South on trips to various parts of the country, where they were told that these historical sites and ancient temples "are yours, too!"

But none of these trips ever included a stop at the Phaya Thani cannons. What would we tell these kids if they had done so? "This used to be yours but not anymore. Learn to live with it, buddy - you are a defeated people."

-- The Nation 2013-06-16

It would have been a good gesture to return the cannons to the people of the south.

One thought occurs. They do realise they probably don't work any more, don't they?

Quite an ignorant and misleading article. The only reason why these people are Muslims is because they were forced into it by Arabic traders. They were not converted or persuaded, they were forced, mostly by slavery. If you are going to tell a story, it helps to be balanced and tell the full story.

Quite an ignorant and misleading article. The only reason why these people are Muslims is because they were forced into it by Arabic traders. They were not converted or persuaded, they were forced, mostly by slavery. If you are going to tell a story, it helps to be balanced and tell the full story.

That was too long ago to be relevant now.

No, lemonjelly. It's very relevant. Indeed, it's because of this we have people who are indigenous to this country and continent that have beliefs that are not compatible or relevant. If it wasn't relevant then why do they use Islam in their argument?

No, lemonjelly. It's very relevant. Indeed, it's because of this we have people who are indigenous to this country and continent that have beliefs that are not compatible or relevant. If it wasn't relevant then why do they use Islam in their argument?

You do realise that Islam arose in Asia, right? [Yes, Saudi Arabia is in Asia]. And Buddhism arose in the north of Indian subcontinent, which is also quite far away. Then consider the fact that Islam is the most widely practiced religion in SE Asia. So how to argue that this religion is not 'compatible or relevant'?

Islam began in Saudi, it was spread through fear and intimidation. It has only remained in countries where leadership was weak. You can state geographically or you can state in terms of culture when you describe such as Asia. I have lived and worked in 11 Arabic countries and there is no way Saudi is referred to or described as Asian either colloquially or legally.

No, lemonjelly. It's very relevant. Indeed, it's because of this we have people who are indigenous to this country and continent that have beliefs that are not compatible or relevant. If it wasn't relevant then why do they use Islam in their argument?

You do realise that Islam arose in Asia, right? [Yes, Saudi Arabia is in Asia]. And Buddhism arose in the north of Indian subcontinent, which is also quite far away. Then consider the fact that Islam is the most widely practiced religion in SE Asia. So how to argue that this religion is not 'compatible or relevant'?

"the most widely practiced religion in SE Asia" would have more relevance if its followers were not forced by fear and intimidation to remain so.

No, lemonjelly. It's very relevant. Indeed, it's because of this we have people who are indigenous to this country and continent that have beliefs that are not compatible or relevant. If it wasn't relevant then why do they use Islam in their argument?

You do realise that Islam arose in Asia, right? [Yes, Saudi Arabia is in Asia]. And Buddhism arose in the north of Indian subcontinent, which is also quite far away. Then consider the fact that Islam is the most widely practiced religion in SE Asia. So how to argue that this religion is not 'compatible or relevant'?

"the most widely practiced religion in SE Asia" would have more relevance if its followers were not forced by fear and intimidation to remain so.

No, lemonjelly. It's very relevant. Indeed, it's because of this we have people who are indigenous to this country and continent that have beliefs that are not compatible or relevant. If it wasn't relevant then why do they use Islam in their argument?

Whether the ancestors of the southern Thai muslims forced into islam or not, I still say that it is irrelevant to the present predicament of the three southern provinces.

No, lemonjelly. It's very relevant. Indeed, it's because of this we have people who are indigenous to this country and continent that have beliefs that are not compatible or relevant. If it wasn't relevant then why do they use Islam in their argument?

Whether the ancestors of the southern Thai muslims forced into islam or not, I still say that it is irrelevant to the present predicament of the three southern provinces.

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

No, lemonjelly. It's very relevant. Indeed, it's because of this we have people who are indigenous to this country and continent that have beliefs that are not compatible or relevant. If it wasn't relevant then why do they use Islam in their argument?

Whether the ancestors of the southern Thai muslims forced into islam or not, I still say that it is irrelevant to the present predicament of the three southern provinces.

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

go on......

They should be proud to have fake cannons. In a country where fake is the norm, including the fake Thai smile.

according to the O.E.D., the plural of cannon is cannon.

I think they were just pissed off because they thought they were getting a free camera.

.

"the most widely practiced religion in SE Asia" would have more relevance if its followers were not forced by fear and intimidation to remain so.

Are you suggesting the 200m+ Muslims in Indonesia follow their religion only because of "fear and intimidation"?

They should be proud to have fake cannons. In a country where fake is the norm, including the fake Thai smile.

according to the O.E.D., the plural of cannon is cannon.

Cannon to right of them,

Cannon to left of them,

Cannon in front of them....................Tennyson agrees

.

"the most widely practiced religion in SE Asia" would have more relevance if its followers were not forced by fear and intimidation to remain so.

Are you suggesting the 200m+ Muslims in Indonesia follow their religion only because of "fear and intimidation"?

No, I am STATING that that number could be far less if the "word of god" did not say that death is the only suitable punishment for somebody inducted into a religion at birth who now wishes to opt out.

No, lemonjelly. It's very relevant. Indeed, it's because of this we have people who are indigenous to this country and continent that have beliefs that are not compatible or relevant. If it wasn't relevant then why do they use Islam in their argument?

Whether the ancestors of the southern Thai muslims forced into islam or not, I still say that it is irrelevant to the present predicament of the three southern provinces.

That the current occupants were forced into a religion at birth, and the prescribed punishment for abandoning it are rather harsh, is very relevant though.

I think they were just pissed off because they thought they were getting a free camera.

Still can aim and shoot, though.

They should be proud to have fake cannons. In a country where fake is the norm, including the fake Thai smile.

Tsk, tsk, tsk! Real is off limits; it's not important. Image is supreme. Farang can't understand Thainess.

I think they were just pissed off because they thought they were getting a free camera.

Still can aim and shoot, though.

the Thai authorities should do a DSLR for SLR exchange program.

They should be proud to have fake cannons. In a country where fake is the norm, including the fake Thai smile.

So you're saying that smiling to be polite, despite how you feel, is uniquely Thai and it's fake? That means Nat King Cole, Charlie Chaplin et al were actually Thai?

Smile though your heart is aching

Smile even though it's breaking

When there are clouds in the sky, you'll get by

If you smile through your fear and sorrow

Smile and maybe tomorrow

You'll see the sun come shining through for you

Light up your face with gladness

Hide every trace of sadness

Although a tear may be ever so near

That's the time you must keep on trying

Smile, what's the use of crying?

You'll find that life is still worthwhile

If you just smile

That's the time you must keep on trying

Smile, what's the use of crying?

You'll find that life is still worthwhile

If you just smile

Words by john turner and geoffrey parsons and music by charlie chaplin

everybody knows religon is for people who are scared of death,and feel the need to grasp anthing that will make them feel secure,,,,,,,

.

"the most widely practiced religion in SE Asia" would have more relevance if its followers were not forced by fear and intimidation to remain so.

Are you suggesting the 200m+ Muslims in Indonesia follow their religion only because of "fear and intimidation"?

I explain to my wife that if she was born in Italy or Spain then it is odds on that she would follow the Roman Catholic faith. She vehemently denies this. If she had been born in the UK the odds are she would write C of E in the box on the forms. She won't buy that either. Her answer to my question of why is she a Buddhist is quite predictably "you are farang . You mai khow jai.' as if that explains anything. My view is that the religion that is thrust upon you is that of your parents and it is bestowed upon you whether you like it or not. Relatively few people in the 'civilised' world give a toss one way or the other anyway these days.

A question. Is it the Christians in Indonesia and the Philippines that attack and murder the followers of Islam? If both Christians and Muslims believe in the same God, shouldn't all believe in free will?

My view of organised religion? I object to an old man who wears pretty frocks, a funny hat and slippers and runs around the cities of the World at the expense of the native tax payers in a bullet proof golf cart, living in luxury in at least two palaces paid for by his followers who are not exactly flush with money, and pronouncing on right and wrong, particularly in relation to whether a woman should decide for herself about the ethics of birth control and abortion. None of the religious leaders of the World have even a nodding acquaintance with the notion of self sacrifice or serving the needs of their flocks. Organised religion is yet another power grabbing exercise practiced by the favoured few.

.

"the most widely practiced religion in SE Asia" would have more relevance if its followers were not forced by fear and intimidation to remain so.

Are you suggesting the 200m+ Muslims in Indonesia follow their religion only because of "fear and intimidation"?

I explain to my wife that if she was born in Italy or Spain then it is odds on that she would follow the Roman Catholic faith. She vehemently denies this. If she had been born in the UK the odds are she would write C of E in the box on the forms. She won't buy that either. Her answer to my question of why is she a Buddhist is quite predictably "you are farang . You mai khow jai.' as if that explains anything. My view is that the religion that is thrust upon you is that of your parents and it is bestowed upon you whether you like it or not. Relatively few people in the 'civilised' world give a toss one way or the other anyway these days.

A question. Is it the Christians in Indonesia and the Philippines that attack and murder the followers of Islam? If both Christians and Muslims believe in the same God, shouldn't all believe in free will?

My view of organised religion? I object to an old man who wears pretty frocks, a funny hat and slippers and runs around the cities of the World at the expense of the native tax payers in a bullet proof golf cart, living in luxury in at least two palaces paid for by his followers who are not exactly flush with money, and pronouncing on right and wrong, particularly in relation to whether a woman should decide for herself about the ethics of birth control and abortion. None of the religious leaders of the World have even a nodding acquaintance with the notion of self sacrifice or serving the needs of their flocks. Organised religion is yet another power grabbing exercise practiced by the favoured few.

The only question someone born into a religion cannot answer is "why did you choose to be ......"

Quite an ignorant and misleading article. The only reason why these people are Muslims is because they were forced into it by Arabic traders. They were not converted or persuaded, they were forced, mostly by slavery. If you are going to tell a story, it helps to be balanced and tell the full story.

Absolutely irrelevant and quite insulting.

No, lemonjelly. It's very relevant. Indeed, it's because of this we have people who are indigenous to this country and continent that have beliefs that are not compatible or relevant. If it wasn't relevant then why do they use Islam in their argument?

You do realise that Islam arose in Asia, right? [Yes, Saudi Arabia is in Asia]. And Buddhism arose in the north of Indian subcontinent, which is also quite far away. Then consider the fact that Islam is the most widely practiced religion in SE Asia. So how to argue that this religion is not 'compatible or relevant'?

"the most widely practiced religion in SE Asia" would have more relevance if its followers were not forced by fear and intimidation to remain so.

As long as they're not threatened with burning for eternity in hell like the christians. All religions use fear and terror.

No, lemonjelly. It's very relevant. Indeed, it's because of this we have people who are indigenous to this country and continent that have beliefs that are not compatible or relevant. If it wasn't relevant then why do they use Islam in their argument?

You do realise that Islam arose in Asia, right? [Yes, Saudi Arabia is in Asia]. And Buddhism arose in the north of Indian subcontinent, which is also quite far away. Then consider the fact that Islam is the most widely practiced religion in SE Asia. So how to argue that this religion is not 'compatible or relevant'?

"the most widely practiced religion in SE Asia" would have more relevance if its followers were not forced by fear and intimidation to remain so.

As long as they're not threatened with burning for eternity in hell like the christians. All religions use fear and terror.

While I agree in concept, there are differing degrees. While you would find it difficult to prove to me that anybody has been forced to spend eternity in torment, or that somebody has been reincarnated as a cockroach, it would not be difficult to find quite a few ex-muslims who were murdered for their declaration of a lack of faith. IMHO there a many who would walk away if not for the threatened consequences.

BTW I did once see a cockroach with many of the characteristics of my ex-wife, but I discounted re-incarnation as she wasn't dead yet.

Islam began in Saudi, it was spread through fear and intimidation. It has only remained in countries where leadership was weak. You can state geographically or you can state in terms of culture when you describe such as Asia. I have lived and worked in 11 Arabic countries and there is no way Saudi is referred to or described as Asian either colloquially or legally.

Not sure what 'legally' means when stating what continent a country is in, but geographically, there is no doubt that Saudi Arabia is part of Asia: http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/31551/Arabia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia. Places like Iran, eastern Turkey, Israel, Syria, and Iraq are all part of West Asia. Egypt is in Africa. It's a geographical fact that is unchanged by where you may have lived.

And there's no such thing as 'Asian culture' as you seem to suggest. Most of the Middle East is in (West) Asia. Also in Asia are places like Afghanistan, most of Russia, the Indian Subcontinent, Japan, and Indonesia... all very different cultures and all part of the continent of Asia.

.

"the most widely practiced religion in SE Asia" would have more relevance if its followers were not forced by fear and intimidation to remain so.

Are you suggesting the 200m+ Muslims in Indonesia follow their religion only because of "fear and intimidation"?

Another subject but fear and intimidation has a lot to do with it when the death penalty is for leaving this religion.